Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ahmari vs. French-ism
Sohrab Ahmari is my new go-to conservative writer after reading the autobiographical story of his conversion from elite intellectual leftism to Catholic conservatism. My conversion was similarly simultaneously religious and political, though not as dramatic as his. Still, we share a worldview which he expresses much more eloquently than I ever could.
In his piece for First Things, Against David French-ism, he takes up a theme I have long considered sorely neglected by conservatives debating the culture wars: the necessity of asserting moral authority in the political realm, rather than adopting the modernist’s faith in individual autonomy. We must understand that, by living a Christian life, we already stand as a rebuke to the Left, which it aggressively will not tolerate.
Only, the libertines take the logic of maximal autonomy—the one French shares—to its logical terminus. They say, in effect: For us to feel fully autonomous, you must positively affirm our sexual choices, our transgression, our power to disfigure our natural bodies and redefine what it means to be human, lest your disapprobation make us feel less than fully autonomous.
They have a point: Individual experiments in living—say, taking your kids to a drag reading hour at the public library—cannot be sustained without some level of moral approval by the community. Autonomy-maximizing liberalism is normative, in its own twisted way. Thus, it represents the interiorization, and fulfillment, of French’s worldview. And this is how David French-ism gets trapped.
You want to teach your kids the sacredness of marriage and the marital act? Do you think public schools are going to let you get away with that? That’s insulting and bigoted toward the unwed parent(s) raising your kids’ classmates. Your stance in favor of the unborn is a hardship you impose on women who want to solve their problems with abortions. How dare you be so uncompassionate?? How does it hurt your marriage if everyone gets to define marriage according to his or her (or ze’s or zir’s) own appetites? Why not monagamish? Or throuples? Or wedlease? And who are you (we, the polis) to say?
I realize Ahmari and I are in dangerous waters with this argument. We’ll be accused of wanting to establish Catholicism as the state religion. Or, worse, a Catholic theocracy. I do not expect my Protestant brothers and sisters to agree with us on the necessity of a living moral authority; it is one of the greatest divisions between us. But, I adamantly believe we need to have the discussion about drawing lines, who gets to do it (preferably, we, the people), and where the lines ought to be drawn. By neglecting this premise, we are forfeiting the culture war to the Left, which has no such compunction about asserting its authority over our lives.
Published in General
I would never vote for such a man. Never. You are busy defending the idea of not increasing chaos, and he courted it. His judgement is poor. Worse, he contemplated working against the democratic process to let the House select the President.
I cannot begin to express how much that angers me. I find it unforgivable. He wants to play the Christian? He needs to look at his Pride that he thinks he knows so much better than the Trump supporters.
And who I vote for has nothing to do with my morals.
Although survey data says otherwise, with younger people more strongly opposed to abortion. Here, it is argued that technology changed society. The ubiquitous ultrasound snapshot, shared around, posted on refrigerator doors, told people something with their own eyes that overwhelmed the teachings of the law. Or so goes the tale.
The best defense of David French is offered of course by David French. A nugget.
My political opponents are my fellow citizens. When I wore the uniform of my country, I was willing to die for them. Why would I think I’m at war with them now? I disagree with the left and much of the populist right, vigorously. If and when any of my political opponents seek to undermine our fundamental freedoms, I’ll be there to pick a legal, political, and cultural fight with them. I won’t yield. I won’t stop. I won’t be weak. But I also won’t turn my back on the truths of scripture. I won’t stop seeking justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly. There is no political “emergency” that justifies abandoning classical liberalism, and there will never be a temporal emergency that justifies rejecting the eternal truth.
Right on!
read the whole thing.
This is just weird. If the House selected the President in accord with the Constitution it would be upholding our Republican form of Government, not undermining it. Participating in the system is not undermining the system.
What point are you making here? French is to be followed because what, he served in the military?
I don’t understand how supporting Trump means I want to kill people on the left. He seems to be casting those of us who do support Trump in that light.
French has said that Christians should not support Trump, because they are betryaing their faith. He has said it. So, I find that as loathsome as anything Clinton said about Deplorables. It is worse, really, because he is betraying those on his side.
No sin, is worse than betrayal to me. None. French has declared he is my enemy, when he tells me I cannot support Trump and remain true to God.
Oh please! Do you honestly think there would not have been massive blow back from the left? Look at the damage 2000 did. Look at how they have responded to Trump. The damage done to the Republic would have been massive. I would have rather Clinton be elected than do that. Further, trying to get to that result is clearly (and you did not even bother to refute it) trying to subvert the will of the People. He was not trying to change minds, he was trying to nullify their votes.
Please explain to my how voting for Trump over Clinton has anything at all to say about my morals. I am eager to hear your BS explanation about how I am less of a person for voting for Trump.
In the article I linked here
David French gives several examples for you.
I gave examples in the early comment you responded to with the links. Did you read those links?
Here is the survey
The actual quote is from Ben Domenech
If and when?
Let me know when Mr. French wakes up from his slumber.
Please! The Left is totally winning the culture war at every turn. Did you miss the big case where the Supreme Court made Gay Marriage mandatory? Did you miss that? That is a big win that will never, be undone. Anymore than Abortion will ever be wiped out.
You cannot give me one big vicotory in the past 70 years. The left does nothing but win, and the Frenchs of the world don’t want to change how we fight.
Sorry, find me a Demcrat in power. The voters keep voting these pople in. Therefore, they are OK with the support of the violence. OTherewise they would demand change. Your poll means nada.
Oh, I am sorry, is Drew not here talking?
Never. he does not mean it. he is part of the poltical class, who have jobs which will never be outsourced.
He is a damn pundit.
No one to my knowledge ever made that point.
Not by my lights. I don’t anyone that is saying that Sohrab Ahmari and Ben Domenech have implied but using violent metaphors without explaining their tactics. Like how do you stop people from voluntarily taking their kids to hear a Drag Queen read a book?
Link?
Link?
From David French:
As for my supposed “haranguing” of my fellow Evangelicals, Ahmari is wrong there, too. I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary Clinton, and I stated my reasons and urged others to abstain like I did. But I don’t criticize my fellow believers for making a different choice. What I have done is to point out the moral failure and hypocrisy of those of the movement’s leaders who abandoned their clearly stated, long-held principles for the sake of continuing to defend a man they’d unequivocally condemn if he was a member of the opposing party. There are receipts here. There are Evangelical statements, like the Southern Baptist Convention’s 1998 Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials, that were supposed to describe enduring Christian principles, including the rules of Christian engagement in the public square. Too many Christians are tossing them aside, and I continue to ask: for what?
I’m sure David French will be the most righteous man in the gulag.
Any mishandling of any political problem can lead to blow back. What would be your solution as to who should be President if there is no clear winner in the Electoral College? If there isn’t a winner there is not a winner and the House gets to decide. If people want to overthrow the Constitution illegally there is remedy for that. If the House makes a bad call vote em all out.
I have no idea why you are less of person for voting for Trump. Any explanation that tired to make you less of a person for voting for Trump would be BS for sure. Why would I want to explain such an insane thing?
Something like 26 years ago in Law school.
OMG! Are you serious?
Oh I am sorry, he isn ot “Haranguing” them, he is just calling them out for “moral failure and hypocrisy”Oh that is so different!
David French clearly feels that he should be able to force his will upon the American people, and feels free to sit in judgment of anyone who does not agree with him.
He has nothing to lose, and sits in judgement of people who are losing everything. He cares not for the plight of the Trump supporter, and indeed, clearly feels they should martyr themselves to his cause.
You are avoiding the point, again. I must have a good one, because you won’t address it.
French courted throwing the election into the House in order to prevent Trump from being elected over the will of the voters. It was an attempt, by Republicans, to do an end run around 90% of their voters. That. Is. Wrong. French is a Judas.
You are the one saying voting for Trump over Clinton was a moral one. Please explain, or do you take it back?
He failed to thread that needle, didn’t he?
“I don’t criticize my fellow believers for making a different choice “. . . then he proceeds to criticize his fellow believers for making a different choice.
I’m liking him less and less the more you showcase him.
I would agree, but I cannot like someone any less without moving to hate.
Reminds me of the response to Tucker Carlson when he dared criticize Conservatism, Inc. for their part in the destruction of the working class.
If French thinks that the left isn’t currently seeking to undermine our fundamental freedoms, then he’s hopelessly sunk into the swamp.
He has his nice, easy job. He is set for life. His kids will want for nothing. He never has to fear unemployemtn
I’ve been out of pocket most of the day, so I’m just catching up. Sorry.
First, I do not equate asserting moral authority in politics with using the power of government to coerce behavior. I agree, this is the Left’s M.O. and we shouldn’t emulate it. Virtue cannot be coerced. Period.
However, I believe French-ism gets its priorities wrong when it emphasizes civility, cooperation, and compromise over the assertion of common sense, usual and customary, hard, objective truths. We can’t go on as a society with all the relativism and self-definition (self-deification) going on. Marriage is for family formation (the bulwark against tyrannical government). Not licensing same sex couples for marriage does not coerce them to desist from their homosexual behavior and relationships. It simply doesn’t legitimize it/them. This is common sense, not bigotry.
What should we do about the culture war? How about civil disobedience? Acting up. President Trump is actually a great exemplar of this. He says things in ways that outrage the Left and expose their fragile (non-existent, really) arguments. French-ism counts on the Left overreaching (which they are obliging), but their occupation of the commanding heights of culture makes their ascendancy (as Thanos would say) “inevitable.”
In practical terms? Take your kids out of public schools. Or, for a more immediate impact, keep them out on Count Day and send them the rest of the year to drain the school systems’ resources. Stop sending your kids to university. We really must stop it. As I read somewhere recently, you send your kids to schools that insist on leaving God out of every subject for 20 years and expect them to retain the faith of their fathers? Ridiculous. They’re fully indoctrinated into secular leftism — the most potent religion of our times.
I don’t doubt David French is a good man. I simply disagree with his approach to the current moment. Yes, the faith has persisted in hardship (the blood of the martyrs and all that), but the Christian view does not hold The End as paradisaical. It is full of persecution and suffering and we are called to keep our heads up and march into battle — even if it costs us our lives — and most definitely if it costs us our jobs and our social status.
As Drew Klavan says, the question isn’t whether we should hold fast to our beliefs, it’s “are we willing to hold fast to our beliefs despite the consequences.” Fight, dammit.
No time for more now. I understand the confusion now.
I wrote this: That depends on the circumstances. But it is surely true about voting for Trump over Clinton.
I meant to write and I thought I wrote: But it surely NOT true about voting for Trump over Clinton.
To go further if anything choosing to vote for Trump over Clinton, on balance, speaks well of your moral fiber.
The confusion was completely my fault. I apologize.
Most definitely! The Left has used the law to influence the culture and vice versa. Politics and religion (even secular religion) are inseparable.
Anyone you unfairly criticize looks bad that is how unfair criticism works.
Huh?
And this is the ultimate reality of the Populist Right. They aren’t lovers of liberalism seeking to restore the order disrupted by progressive overreach, they are just different petty tyrants in their own rights dreaming of what they will do to their enemies once they have the power. They aren’t even fairweather friends just more enemies of American Constitutionalism.
Populism is not a dirty word.
But to assist us, could you name names? Who are these enemies of American Constitutionalism? It would help to understand your statement if you could give some examples.
Just like “nationalism” isn’t dirty either. Whose nationalism? If you’re a nationalist in a multi-racial, pluralistic, liberty-loving society like America, how is nationalism a bad thing? We’ve let the Left co-opt the language. Shame on us.
On this point I disagree and I think it contradicts your “Fight, dammit” comment. Strong engagement among parents has a real impact on schools. I know in my town very few people show up for school board meetings so the ones that bother to go will be heard. When the Christian parents bail, guess who gets to shape policy?
Now every school is different and there are lots of good reasons for a parent to pull their kid out of a school, but as a Christian I believe the Bible when it says, “greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4) and I believe that is true for children who believe as well. In public school my kids have shared the gospel, challenged teachers on certain issues, my son pointed out an error in their text book regarding the Bible, and my daughter gave a Bible to one of her Muslim friends (and my kids are somewhat shy). We can’t improve the culture if we don’t engage it.